MQA Deep Dive - I published tracks on Tidal to test MQA

[Currawong]

The size may be related to the blocks on your HDD that it is written across, not a change in actual data.

 

[]eep]

Got it, I was dense and did not understand MQA material is delivered in FLAC format. Then if MQA material does not meet FLAC (Xiph.org's) standards, it is not lossless as per FLAC's standards. With that said, I will continue to be a jackass here. Since we now have a standard to debate under, let's go to Xiph.org's license page:

They hold no patent or control over the FLAC standard. In fact it states: "The FLAC and Ogg FLAC formats themselves, and their specifications, are fully open to the public to be used for any purpose (the FLAC project reserves the right to set the FLAC specification and certify compliance). They are free for commercial or noncommercial use. That means that commercial developers may independently write FLAC or Ogg FLAC software which is compatible with the specifications for no charge and without restrictions of any kind. There are no licensing fees or royalties of any kind for use of the formats or their specifications, or for distributing, selling, or streaming media in the FLAC or Ogg FLAC formats."

"Neither the FLAC nor Ogg FLAC formats nor any of the implemented encoding/decoding methods are covered by any known patent."

So without any control which they gave up, anyone can call their product FLAC and define it as is. Xiph states they reserves the right to set set FLAC specification and certify compliance. Without any patents, mechanism for control or enforcement, those are just hollow words. Then that MQA is free to call whatever they want, what they want ("lossless").

In the FAQ section:
"I compressed a WAVE file to FLAC, then decompressed to WAVE, and the two weren't identical. Why?
I compressed a WAVE file to FLAC and it said "warning: skipping unknown sub-chunk LIST". Why?

WAVE is a complicated standard; many kinds of data besides audio data can be put in it. Most likely what has happened is that the application that created the original WAVE file also added some extra information for it's own use, which FLAC does not store or recreate by default (but can with the --keep-foreign-metadata option) (see also). The audio data in the two WAVE files will be identical. There are other tools to compare just the audio content of two WAVE files; ExactAudioCopy has such a feature."

Using JRiver, I took a random 56.4 MB (59,183,422 bytes) WAV file and converted it to a FLAC file. That FLAC file is now 39.3 MB (41,282,455 bytes). Converting that FLAC back to WAV, it is now 56.4 MB (59,187,524 bytes). There are no further changes in size in conversions. This seems to be minuscule size difference and it seemed to increase the size of the original file for some reason. Again, audio data is said not to be lost but in a conversion back and forth there was a difference. It appears some data was lost that their protocols don't consider important. But still troubling, they aren't sure what was lost. However they are assuring us the audio data is fine. When you lost (or in this case gained) something, that would seem to be incongruous with any definition of lossless? I'll stipulate that no audio quality was lost (as Xiph claims) but data was lost was it not?

You just assume I use Tidal. I don't, nor use MQA and quite frankly could care less about either party here per se. I don't care about bits, rez, format or any buzz word du jour. I've lived through records, reel to reel, cassette, laserdisc, redbook, Minidisc, DAT, DCC, whitebook, MP3, AAC and scarletbook off the top of my head. If MQA becomes the future, so be it. Been there, done that this is nothing new.

you're definitely not a jackass since you put in serious effort to understand, research the matter and share your findings. However (don't you hate that word)...

We are making progress. But to come back to flac... flac encoding is software published under licence. That means there are legal restrictions which can be enforced. And as Microsoft's Steve Balmer said: "open source is like a cancer" since its licence is inherited in every piece of software you write. So while you may use it for free you may NOT charge money for any piece of software that contains open source material. In plain english: The devil said to God 'I can create from dust too so move over'... Then God replied "Then make your own dust!"

So what you said about Xiph relinquishing control over its software is not correct. It's free as in free speech, not free beer. Everyone is free to use it but not free to give away. So MQA is not free to call it their own. Besides, as I said before, flac is a codec but also a file container that contains the flac coded audio file, text and graphics files rolled into one big ball. MQA can use their mqa-folded music file which is the 'music' and publish as theirs (so legally it doesn't inherit the open source software restriction as this falls under music copyright which is valid for 50 years), and envelop it in a flac container. Now this mqa-folded music file can be read as a flac encoded file from this container, with restrictions (13bit). If you were to upsample this without the mqa sorcery ie you don't have an mqa dac, you will lose data. It's 'backwards' compatible but you will lose dynamics and get crap instead for those 3 lsb.

Also, a file is more than raw data, it contains lots and lots of metadata. Like a Word document contains a lot more than just the text you typed. All sorts of invisible stuff that tells the program what font to use, size, weight, paragraphs, indents, corrections, macros etc etc. You can look at what a file is and how the different kind of data follow eachother when you use a hex-viewer. Now to your example wav file: you didn't loose data, it just got bigger, right? You used 2 recoding steps right? Now the recoder you used probably left its footprint saying something like 'recoded by music recorder free, published under licence... settings... reference libFLAC 1.3.1 2014 ARTIST:...' etc.. Same for the wav file. Making it just a tiny amount bigger.

 

[hottyson]

This guy is legendary!
Part two!

 

[]eep]

legendary... check Wikipedia under [25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated

when searching it becomes more and more apparent that the truth is coming out and awareness among audiophiles is growing. The pen still is a mighty weapon. But also the way Goldensound calmly keeps coming back to the facts really is the best strategy.

 

[littlej0e]

legendary... check Wikipedia under [25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated

when searching it becomes more and more apparent that the truth is coming out and awareness among audiophiles is growing. The pen still is a mighty weapon. But also the way Goldensound calmly keeps coming back to the facts really is the best strategy.

Agreed. The talk page is also quite interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Master_Quality_Authenticated#Disputed

I suspect the page will remain in a perpetual state of "This article's factual accuracy is disputed" until someone unequivocally proves things one way or another.

The optics of the situation combined with MQA's responses (which are mostly devoid of evidence of any kind) are making it harder and harder to argue their tech is legit. Part of me understands why they aren't forthcoming. It's the same reason why Microsoft never publishes the source code for Windows. But it seems like MQA would rather go down with the "just trust us" ship instead of providing verifiable evidence to refute Goldenone's (and other's) claims. I assume that's because doing so would somehow be more detrimental to their business or the negative press hasn't reached critical mass to impact their bottom line enough.

Regardless, providing verifiable data will absolutely cost them some money, but continuing down this path of avoidance could end up costing them all of it.

 

[Lurker0918]

The size may be related to the blocks on your HDD that it is written across, not a change in actual data.

I was being pedantic about the term lossless. Most people and the common usage are of mind that if no audio quality is lost despite metadata being lost during encoding, it is constructively lossless. But it can also be argued (as illustrated) that if you are losing or gaining anything anywhere along the conversion chain, how can something be called lossless under plain English? Further, especially if you don't know what it was you lost in the first place? You're taking it on good faith that when Xiph says you are not losing any audio quality (there is no reason to doubt them or the methods of proof offered up), but it is still troubling you lost something and that you don't know what it was to begin with. (facetiously) Contemplate that next time you wake up from surgery and the surgeon is frantically looking for a missing object while swearing that they didn't sew it up in you.

 

[Lurker0918]

you're definitely not a jackass since you put in serious effort to understand, research the matter and share your findings. However (don't you hate that word)...

We are making progress. But to come back to flac... flac encoding is software published under licence. That means there are legal restrictions which can be enforced. And as Microsoft's Steve Balmer said: "open source is like a cancer" since its licence is inherited in every piece of software you write. So while you may use it for free you may NOT charge money for any piece of software that contains open source material. In plain english: The devil said to God 'I can create from dust too so move over'... Then God replied "Then make your own dust!"

So what you said about Xiph relinquishing control over its software is not correct. It's free as in free speech, not free beer. Everyone is free to use it but not free to give away. So MQA is not free to call it their own. Besides, as I said before, flac is a codec but also a file container that contains the flac coded audio file, text and graphics files rolled into one big ball. MQA can use their mqa-folded music file which is the 'music' and publish as theirs (so legally it doesn't inherit the open source software restriction as this falls under music copyright which is valid for 50 years), and envelop it in a flac container. Now this mqa-folded music file can be read as a flac encoded file from this container, with restrictions (13bit). If you were to upsample this without the mqa sorcery ie you don't have an mqa dac, you will lose data. It's 'backwards' compatible but you will lose dynamics and get crap instead for those 3 lsb.

Also, a file is more than raw data, it contains lots and lots of metadata. Like a Word document contains a lot more than just the text you typed. All sorts of invisible stuff that tells the program what font to use, size, weight, paragraphs, indents, corrections, macros etc etc. You can look at what a file is and how the different kind of data follow eachother when you use a hex-viewer. Now to your example wav file: you didn't loose data, it just got bigger, right? You used 2 recoding steps right? Now the recoder you used probably left its footprint saying something like 'recoded by music recorder free, published under licence... settings... reference libFLAC 1.3.1 2014 ARTIST:...' etc.. Same for the wav file. Making it just a tiny amount bigger.

I don't agree with that at all. It is in plain English on their site and we did not even have to delve into contracts or legal documents. Like they said, there is no patent and without something like that, they relinquished any and all rights. They have no way of enforcing anything other than appealing to decency as the format's spiritual Godfather. Either way, the lossless point is now moot since they apparently surrendered on it.

And also, yes FLAC is sold for profit. Legit sites on the web (I don't know if I am allowed to name any here) sell music files in FLAC format. Amongst other things, the current Billboard Top 100 album is available in FLAC for sale.

 

[InvisibleInk]

I don't agree with that at all. It is in plain English on their site and we did not even have to delve into contracts or legal documents. Like they said, there is no patent and without something like that, they relinquished any and all rights. They have no way of enforcing anything other than appealing to decency as the format's spiritual Godfather. Either way, the lossless point is now moot since they apparently surrendered on it.

And also, yes FLAC is sold for profit. Legit sites on the web (I don't know if I am allowed to name any here) sell music files in FLAC format. Amongst other things, the current Billboard Top 100 album is available in FLAC for sale.

Do you know anything about copy left public licensing?

 

[chef8489]

I don't agree with that at all. It is in plain English on their site and we did not even have to delve into contracts or legal documents. Like they said, there is no patent and without something like that, they relinquished any and all rights. They have no way of enforcing anything other than appealing to decency as the format's spiritual Godfather. Either way, the lossless point is now moot since they apparently surrendered on it.

And also, yes FLAC is sold for profit. Legit sites on the web (I don't know if I am allowed to name any here) sell music files in FLAC format. Amongst other things, the current Billboard Top 100 album is available in FLAC for sale.

They are selling the music not the flac format. That is in no way like mqa who you have to purchase products that had to pay mqa the right to decode the mqa files. Flac is free and open source. Anyone can use it with no fees.

 

[Sterling2]

I used to buy multi-channel music from Acoustic Sounds in FLAC format because foobar 2000 will play it. It was a hassle. A lot of clicks to get the files to the player and then driver configuration to get files via HDMI to OPPO. From music purchase to music playback about 27 clicks as I recall. This hassle inspired me to stick to 5.1 SACDs, although now with Apple's foray into Dolby ATOMS music delivery I am once again configuring my OPPO's drive to deliver Dolby ATMOS and hoping I do not need so many clicks to enjoy it.

 

[]eep]

I was being pedantic about the term lossless. Most people and the common usage are of mind that if no audio quality is lost despite metadata being lost during encoding, it is constructively lossless. But it can also be argued (as illustrated) that if you are losing or gaining anything anywhere along the conversion chain, how can something be called lossless under plain English? Further, especially if you don't know what it was you lost in the first place? You're taking it on good faith that when Xiph says you are not losing any audio quality (there is no reason to doubt them or the methods of proof offered up), but it is still troubling you lost something and that you don't know what it was to begin with. (facetiously) Contemplate that next time you wake up from surgery and the surgeon is frantically looking for a missing object while swearing that they didn't sew it up in you.

ok, let me facitious too... so...

I don't agree with that at all. It is in plain English on their site and we did not even have to delve into contracts or legal documents. Like they said, there is no patent and without something like that, they relinquished any and all rights. They have no way of enforcing anything other than appealing to decency as the format's spiritual Godfather. Either way, the lossless point is now moot since they apparently surrendered on it.

And also, yes FLAC is sold for profit. Legit sites on the web (I don't know if I am allowed to name any here) sell music files in FLAC format. Amongst other things, the current Billboard Top 100 album is available in FLAC for sale.

you don't agree at all when I say that you're definitely not a jackass? Ok, then I take it back.
In information technology 'lossless audio compression' which is what we are speaking about here only has a bearing on the compression (or coding), NOT on the mastering process that produces the music file. You can perfectly well fill a free vacuum container with excrement and sell the contents because you made the s#it. But the container will still be free and it will still be vacuum even if you spilled over some of it while filling.

Also, there are more legally binding agreements than patents. Every time you click [yes] when you install a program to get it started you agree to a legally binding license contract because you willingly agreed. This happens every time you install a program that includes FLAC software. QED.

When you take a taxi you do not buy the car or the chauffeur, you just buy the service he provides for your transportation. You verbally enter into a legally binding contract when you enter and ask to be transported to your destination. Flac is the free transport, however you cannot sell the cab because it's still not yours. Capice?

 

[Currawong]

Using JRiver, I took a random 56.4 MB (59,183,422 bytes) WAV file and converted it to a FLAC file. That FLAC file is now 39.3 MB (41,282,455 bytes). Converting that FLAC back to WAV, it is now 56.4 MB (59,187,524 bytes).

My guess was right, in that subtracting the original WAV file size from the final, the difference was about 4k, which is likely a single block on your HD, suggesting the second version was probably fragmented when written.

I was being pedantic about the term lossless. Most people and the common usage are of mind that if no audio quality is lost despite metadata being lost during encoding, it is constructively lossless. But it can also be argued (as illustrated) that if you are losing or gaining anything anywhere along the conversion chain, how can something be called lossless under plain English? Further, especially if you don't know what it was you lost in the first place? You're taking it on good faith that when Xiph says you are not losing any audio quality (there is no reason to doubt them or the methods of proof offered up), but it is still troubling you lost something and that you don't know what it was to begin with. (facetiously) Contemplate that next time you wake up from surgery and the surgeon is frantically looking for a missing object while swearing that they didn't sew it up in you.

In audio, a "lossless" compression scheme is one that does not alter the music data, such that on decompression, the bit-perfect original is restored. Nothing to do with metadata. Nothing to do with any other equipment or aspect of the recording or playback chain (except digital volume controls or software down-sampling). Nothing being taken no faith either, this all can be tested.

 

[Lurker0918]

Do you know anything about copy left public licensing?

No, I have not heard of copyleft, I can use the education if you are inclined.

However, doing a cursory look at "copyleft", taking a look at the GPL referenced by Xiph (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html and the cliff notes version: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html). "We call this copyleft: the software is copyrighted, but instead of using those rights to restrict users like proprietary software does, we use them to ensure that every user has freedom". My reading of this is it is only applicable to software, not the ensuing products resulting with "viral" application from software to software.

I went into Westlaw, searched "copyleft" and there appeared all of 20 cases in all State and Federal jurisdictions where only two dealt with GPL (as opposed to 10,000 cases for copyright in general). One in 2014 in WD Texas where part of the suit involved a GPL claim, it was remanded back to state court as a potential copy right issue instead of a GPL violation. The second case was in the 7th Circuit in 2006, where plaintiff sued defendants that GPL violated anti-trust laws (haha) which was dismissed. The Judge says in his Opinion after a discussion about Linux and defendant here (which may be out of context, but I am not pulling the entire docket and pleadings) "... The GPL covers only the software; people are free to charge for the physical media on which it comes and for assistance in making it work..." For the remaining cases, one was a defamation case which seemed to make reference to GPL usage. Not sure what the other cases were, but there was no direct usage of "copyleft", possibly just citing the previous two cases for some reason or other. This took all of thirty minutes to research.

Notwithstanding there may be other cases not reported in Westlaw or using other terms (anti trust seems to pop up here), but I certainly don't see a hand of God crushing of GPL violators, especially by GNU. Do you have some case law I missed? Or am I missing something here as your question was pretty open ended? As I said, this is new to me. Or maybe our superstar legal expert Jeep can search Nexis Lexis or Westlaw and show us?

 

[Lurker0918]

They are selling the music not the flac format. That is in no way like mqa who you have to purchase products that had to pay mqa the right to decode the mqa files. Flac is free and open source. Anyone can use it with no fees.

That does not change the fact that a FLAC file was exchanged for money/profit. Or does twisting oneself into a pretzel really help? Okay, straight from XIPH's own LICENSE page "The FLAC and Ogg FLAC formats themselves, and their specifications, are fully open to the public to be used for any purpose..." What authority are you citing for your interpreation?

And no you don't need to purchase a product to decode MQA files (if that is the nexus you are trying to draw to the violation of the spirit of FLAC that is floating around in your head). As pointed out to me, they come in a FLAC file. Okay to indulge, I got a MQA track. Played it via JRiver through four different DAC's and a ten year old DAP. None of which are MQA compliant. The track played fine. I didn't need to buy any new equipment did I? It played the FLAC layer (I don't know the properly terminology), just not with whatever special MQA sauce was supposed to be there. As per MQA's own site: "MQA will play back on any device to deliver higher than CD-quality. When paired with an MQA decoder, the MQA file reveals the original master recording".

 

[Lurker0918]

My guess was right, in that subtracting the original WAV file size from the final, the difference was about 4k, which is likely a single block on your HD, suggesting the second version was probably fragmented when written.

In audio, a "lossless" compression scheme is one that does not alter the music data, such that on decompression, the bit-perfect original is restored. Nothing to do with metadata. Nothing to do with any other equipment or aspect of the recording or playback chain (except digital volume controls or software down-sampling). Nothing being taken no faith either, this all can be tested.

I am not disputing your methodology or conclusions. But my point is I am going to refer you back to post 110 (I am going to point out you "liked" that post), which refers to the need for official standards vs. arguing via numbers. If the mob is allowed to set a definition on something, so is an even bigger mob. Especially in this situation (where however one issue of lossless is now moot) serious allegations were being made over something.